"Chemicals" to mean "artificial chemicals"
Mar. 1st, 2010 01:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackI have often had a conversaion something like:
A: Oh, look, this product apparently contains "chemicals".
B: What do they fear people would think it was made out of? Plamsa? Neutronium?
Which is very funny. But I feel compelled to admit that "chemical" is pretty clear in this context.
"Rectangle" means "right-angled quadrilateral" but it ALSO means "right-angled quadrilateral, usually not a square." In a mathematical proof, where each line needs to be unambiguous, you would have to say "non-square rectangle" if that's what you meant. But in normal conversation -- even about maths -- "rectangle" can and should include or exclude square based on context.
Similarly, people use "chemical" to mean "chemical, usually one that doesn't have a more specific description". Which in turn often means "artificially produced", because naturally occurring chemicals are more likely to have colloquial or specific names (either because they've been known for a long time, or are complicated).
This is _indicative_ of people thinking "oh, natural is better" which can become dangerously dogmatized, but I think it's perfectly _clear_.
The above conversation is _funny_, but only some of the time is it an accurate criticism.
A: Oh, look, this product apparently contains "chemicals".
B: What do they fear people would think it was made out of? Plamsa? Neutronium?
Which is very funny. But I feel compelled to admit that "chemical" is pretty clear in this context.
"Rectangle" means "right-angled quadrilateral" but it ALSO means "right-angled quadrilateral, usually not a square." In a mathematical proof, where each line needs to be unambiguous, you would have to say "non-square rectangle" if that's what you meant. But in normal conversation -- even about maths -- "rectangle" can and should include or exclude square based on context.
Similarly, people use "chemical" to mean "chemical, usually one that doesn't have a more specific description". Which in turn often means "artificially produced", because naturally occurring chemicals are more likely to have colloquial or specific names (either because they've been known for a long time, or are complicated).
This is _indicative_ of people thinking "oh, natural is better" which can become dangerously dogmatized, but I think it's perfectly _clear_.
The above conversation is _funny_, but only some of the time is it an accurate criticism.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-01 02:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-01 02:22 pm (UTC)Just because a distinction is blurry, doesn't mean it isn't useful or important.